DanielR, you said “To me it doesn’t sound like the family and gay community were seeing the building as a place they would be accepted by God, but rather as a place they could hold a gay pride event”.  A gay pride event?  Are you kidding?  They wanted to hold a memorial service.  Your inference that a grieving family would use a funeral as a chance to hold a gay pride event is disgusting.  Also, a sexual sin with a consenting partner is a sin against your own body (I Cor. 6:18).  Pedophilia is an aggressive, predatory, violent sin against a young, innocent, defenseless child.  Comparing the two is ludicrous.

My point about the pedophilia comparison is that it seems a little “apples to oranges” to me.  That is why I consistently tried to ask if a senior pastor would not allow a funeral for a hetero non married couple if they were “flaunting” their promiscuous love by showing pictures of the couple kissing in the slideshow (obviously promoting their hedonistic lifestyle).  That seems like an equal comparison to me, and I’ve still not received an answer from anyone.

OK, a man dies.  His live in girlfriend is related to someone on your staff.  Because of the connection to the staff they ask to hold the funeral at your church.  They want a slide show in which they are shown kissing.  They want a choir to sing and they have several unmarried friends in the choir who are also dating.  Do you let them hold the service at your church?

Leonard I don’t doubt your sincerity or your love of Christ.  I realize that we’ll never see eye to eye on how this was handled.  If I were to err, I would rather err on the side of extreme, undeserved grace (of which I am a recipient).

I think grace is and should be extravagant but when Jesus came he was full of both truth and grace.  It was this combination that enabled him to fully represent the Father.  Striking the balance is something I am sure you will do well in your life, I hope I do the same, thanks for the dialog on this one.

Peace

Jimmy, I agree the family wanted a memorial service, and they could have had that.  But why the need to exclude clergy?  They wanted a service in the church, but didn’t want it officiated by a member of the clergy, they wanted a member of the choir to officiate the service.  A non-clergy member of the choir? Why? Because he is gay and they (the gay community) wanted to promote a gay agenda in the service and they knew the Pastor would not allow it if he officiated the service.

It sounds to me like the family wanted a memorial service but the process was hijacked by the gay community.  That is what is disgusting.  A memorial service should be all about the deceased and the family, not about promoting an agenda.

Also, I didn’t compare homosexuality to pedophilia; you’re misreading what I wrote.  I was illustrating that ANY church would want to be careful of they seem to be endorsing.  I specifically said even a gay inclusive church would not want to be seen as endorsing pedophilia specifically because some people ignorantly do equate the two and the gay community is sensitive to this and would not want to be perceived as endorsing pedophilia.

I’ve stated previously in this conversation that I’m sure this church would have conducted an appropriate service (neither endorsing nor condemning of his lifestyle) and provided much comfort to the family if they had been allowed.

Yes, I am making the assumption that they wanted to promote a gay agenda, or as has been stated previously in this conversation that they wanted an openly homosexual service.  However, I am making this assumption based on the reports of people who attended the service they did end up having at the funeral home who reported that there were prominent homosexual overtones to the service.

And yes it is not uncommon for a service to be officiated by someone who knew the deceased rather than the Pastor of the church where it is being held.  But not someone whose views are diametrically opposed to those of the church and I think most churches would be reluctant to turn over their facilities to someone who holds very different views than the church to hold any type of service they wished.

I don’t understand why you seem to think this was such a poor decision on the part of the church.  I agree the whole situation could have been handled better, particularly communications, but I don’t fault this church for the decision not to have the service in their facility where there could have been the appearance they supported homosexuality.  Jimmy, you seem to be of the opinion that the church should have allowed anything the family and gay community wanted?

No. I would not let the church be used for a Gay funeral, or a Gay Marriage, nor a Polygamous Marriage, nor a Transgender commitment service…

“Not that there is anything wrong with that.”

Al

The family said they would have been willing to compromise in order to hold the service at the church.  Cecil’s mother said, “We could have reached a compromise,” “That was never attempted.” After the fact, the church admitted that there was actually only one picture with “disturbing homosexual images” on it.  The rest are boring family snapshots.  Turns out this one picture in question is of Cecil with his brother.  The picture looks to me like several pictures my brother and I have posed for where we would mischievously try to hit each other in a certain painful spot in order to get a picture with your brother doubled over in pain.  The church had the opportunity to diffuse the tension between the church and the homosexual community but instead added fuel to the fire.  Of course they are going to say “he had courage to live under discrimination.” From their viewpoint he was even discriminated against during the planning of his service.
If you want to see the pictures yourself and some reporting from a reporter who has first hand knowledge head over to:
http://religion.beloblog.com/archives/2007/08/the_photos_the_family_gave_to.html

Thanks Danny,
This conversation is important because those who have commented that they believe the pastor and church erred are right in at least one point.  The church is not doing what it can do to reach a segment of society that is hurting and needs the Grace and truth of Jesus. 

While I feel as though this particular church was well within the bounds of both grace and truth, most churches I know are not.  I feel as though some of the responses here are really not about this church but in reaction to the church in general.  I find it funny that here we have a church doing the best it can and still live in the “whatever is not of faith is sin” tension and in doing so it goes far beyond the pale of most churches and yet it cannot be given the benefit of the doubt, only the doubt. 

Homosexuality is not just some private matter existing in our world today.  It has huge social ramifications, it has economic ramifications, it influences parenting and the raising of children and much more.  The church is woefully under-ready to deal with these issues, yet has the answer for the soul and life of every person. 

The insistence of the homosexual movement that Christians are bigots and hate mongers is partly earned but only partly.  Many homosexuals I know consider my opinion about the sinfulness of homosexuality hate.  The numbing of our youth to this matter is of great concern.  I know many teens who feel that disagreement on this matter is hate.  The sexual experimentation of your youth is also changing and one reason is the proliferation of the message that Gay is just an alternative lifestyle rather that sinful behavior.  I have spoken to dozens of teens who have begun experimenting with same sex sexual experiences while boldly declaring, “were not gay, we are just curious.”

The ramifications to this are huge, especially as more and more of these young people try to navigate the confusion of adolescence without much help from parents.  I am also aware of many gay and lesbian people that actively recruit people during this season of life.  Examine the overwhelming number of people who are gay or lesbian that have come from homes that are toxic, experienced sexual abuse and have dad’s that were much less than any dad should be and you have a huge recipe for disaster. 

So to Jimmy, and others I want to say thanks for not letting this go.  I do not feel you are right in this matter but you are right on in pushing the church to do better.  I encourage you to offer the same grace you are willing to give a homosexual to those who are not where you are in this matter.  I caution you to not let revisionist theology shape your thinking in this matter because you realize you do not have to alter the standard to show grace or compensate for the churches slowness to respond in grace.  (we have been very quick to respond in truth)

But wait a minute…

We only got to 95 comments (96 including this one...)

We can do better, people!